An honest look at the strengths and weaknesses of Atheism and Christianity, from a Christian-turned-Atheist giving Christianity one more shot

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

After Skepticism

*NOTE: I'm treating whether or not the reader has reached the same conclusion as me, that "all metaphysical systems seem deeply flawed", as secondary to the content of this post. Regardless of whether of not you agree, "what do we do in this case?" is still an interesting question*

It seems like we a few options hre:
1. Pick the metaphysical system that seems most likely, believe the parts that you agree with, and reject the parts you don't
2. Believe the parts that you agree with of every metaphysical system you come across
3. Pick the metaphysical system that seems most likely to be true, and believe all of it's claims, even the ones that you can't justify belief in
4. Reject every metaphysical system since they all seem to have insurmountable problems
5. Keep looking.

I'm going to deal with these one at a time.

1. Pick the metaphysical system that seems most likely, believe the parts that you agree with, and reject the parts you don't

This is the approach taken by Weak Form Christianity (though WFC doesn't so much reject them as it does ignore them). When I was a Christian, I had a fair amount of disrespect for this position. It does seem like a bit of a cop out- can we really trust only part of a religion? Either the religion is true or it's not- and it makes sense that someone starting a new religion would have enough insight into human behavior to get at least parts of it right. At the very least, it seems like your religion is now a reflection of what you know to be true, and not in itself a truth-telling thing. If we're going to accept that which we already agree with and reject that which we already disagree with, then why bother with a metaphysical system at all? The metaphysical system isn't informing our beliefs anymore, so it seems almost superfluous at this point.

This admittedly seems like a bit of an oversimplification. Weak Form Christianity, for example, isn't so much a rejection of general Christian teachings, but rather an admittance of ignorance as to the specifics. You can still believe the core of a religion wholeheartedly. But it does seem that if you reject specifics, you're rejecting the divine inspiration of that religion/denomination, and you're losing a fair bit of your basis for believing it to begin with.2. Believe the parts that you agree with of every metaphysical system you come across

At this point, aren't you really just making up your own religion? At the very least, this method of belief definitely can't teach you new truth. It suffers from all of the shortcomings of the first approach, but has the additional advantage of exposing you to a broader base of truth (or at least gives you more perspectives to weigh), but has the disadvantage of losing any claim that it is or was ever divinely inspired. At least if you believe in Weak Form something, you can say that the underlying religion is God-inspired, if not accurate to the letter.

3. Pick the metaphysical system that seems most likely to be true, and believe all of it's claims, even the ones that you can't justify belief in

...or rather, act as if this system is true, since I'm not convinced you can rationally choose to believe something. This, I think, is the option most people pick, though I'm not sure how many would admit to it. The problem is, this is only a good idea if what you're choosing to "believe" in happens to be right- and if you disagree with the specifics, it seems like we really can't be very confident in this fact.

But the real problem here is that you've given up any ability to think critically about your religion. Your saying that your religion is no longer beholden to your reason or experience- or at least, only parts of it are. Again, it makes sense that every metaphysical system has kernels of truth in it. Just because you find this particular metaphysical system to have more truth than the rest of them, that's not necessarily compelling- one of them has to more true than the rest, by pure virtue of the fact that they're different.

This seems awfully close to blind faith.4. Reject every metaphysical system since they all seem to have insurmountable problems

In practice, these seems to me to look a lot like Nihilistic Atheism (Obviously you can't really "reject everything" while you're still alive, because you still have to make decisions about what to do and why to do it). The best argument I can give against this option is that nobody in their right mind wants to live their life this way. That doesn't make it untrue, of course, but if it is true, then I start to question if we should even care- why not live in delusion if the truth is as horrible as Nihilism?

5. Keep lookingThis is an interesting one for me. I "kept looking" for God for about 2 years before leaving Christianity. I was asked repeatedly why I was "giving up". My answer was to ask another question- How long should I look for something I'm not finding before I stop looking? You can't say "forever", because if it's not actually there, you'll end up wasting your life being obsessed over a question that has no answer. But you also can't give up too soon, because it's not clear that if something were true, it would be obviously apparent. What's the right amount of time to look before giving up and just doing and believing whatever makes you happy? Six months? A year? A decade? The biggest problem is that there are essentially an infinite number of religions to choose from, and you could literally go your whole life without giving them all a fair try (heck, there's almost an infinite number of denominations just within Christianity).

Conclusion

I'd be fascinated to hear what other people think is the right thing to do here. I honestly have no idea. I've thought each of them was the correct path at one point or another. At this point, I'm still in the "Keep Looking" stage, since there are a few mainstream religions I haven't given a legitimate chance to yet. But I'm not too far from having looked into and rejected all the major ones ("rejected" is perhaps too strong of a word. Mostly I'm just "still unconvinced"- doesn't mean I can't or won't be convinced later).

5 comments:

Jake, I think you came to a wonderful conclusion here. Looking at your progress and thought process since your first post you have identified something greater than yourself. You speak of skepticism, atheism, monotheism, polytheism, and nihilism with thoughtful precision. You have searched your mind for the depths of reason and you have found common sense. This is significant because your blog expresses so much of what the core of every human being is searching for-- what every soul craves. There is a truth between every "religion" and it is what connects us all to something Greater. The earth screams it to us and it has become so evident through health and science. The mind of every person aches for it and brings us to our knees in desperation. Ultimately, this quest for the answer you are searching for can only be found in one place and everything else is quite frankly a chasing after the wind. Benjamin Franklin once described his genius compared to the knowledge of the world as if it were a pebble on a plowed field. Knowledge may be based on experienced but truth is based on reality and reality is not subjective opinion. We both are purposes on establishing the truth as reality and you have just found yourself back at "Go" without $200. A belief is a mind dependent thought, which you have. A proposition is a statement making a claim about reality, which is all over your blog. Truth is that which corresponds to reality and that is the key to the answer to your questions. The difficulty of finding truth is no excuse for not looking. In all honest sincerity, through all of the posts that I have read and respected, you are right there, Jake. Ibid claims, "Increasingly, the very idea of objective truth is being ignored, abandoned or attacked-- not only in practice but even in theory, directly and explicitly, especially by the educational and media establishments, who mold our minds." Don't give up, Jake! Don't allow your mind to be molded by the world. The are seven billion people in the world which means there are seven billion different worldviews. Truth exists! Truth corresponds to reality. Truth has a source. Truth has a center. Truth is knowable. Truth can be expressed by language. Truth is absolute. Truth is normative and universal. Truth is exclusive, specific, and antithetical. Truth is systematic and unified. Truth is knocking on the door.

You have talked about what seems like everything. I would encourage you to make your next post by starting at the beginning. I would like to hear your thoughts on the logic of the scientific big bang theory. What is a logical explanation to the existence of the universe?

I talked a little big about the big bang theory in The Question of Origin, but not a whole lot about the specifics of the science. The truth is, I don't know a whole lot about the specifics of the science. There's a book on my reading list called "A Universe from nothing: why there is something rather than nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss, which I hope will shed some light on the scientific aspect when I eventually get there (I've actually already written a post based on a review of "A Universe from Nothing", but figure I should probably read the book before commenting on any review of it...)

Jake, I think you are a good egg with a good heart. I've lived a great deal of my life thinking that I'd figured everything out and saw most people who disagreed with me as either ignorant, evil, or deluded (how compassionate of me!). In the past few months I started reading Mark Shea’s blog which led me to Leah’s, which led me to yours. Mark Shea has really helped me see I was judging people much more harshly than God himself does. Your questions and Leah’s have made me think more critically about my faith and I think I have a better appreciation for it now, as well as a better understanding of the other side of issues (at least a start anyways). I want to thank you for your open and non condescending attitude, and for sharing your own journey in such a public way. I of course hope you keep looking, something tells me you wouldn’t be satisfied with half truths anyways. And when you think you have found the answers, remember that we can never stop striving to do and be better, we can never know everything so you may have to settle in for the long haul, and most importantly, remember that the other guy is usually having just as rough a go of it as we are. Pax Christi to you my friend, you will always be in my prayers.

Thanks Jennifer. I really appreciate the time you've taken to question some of the flaws in my thinking and give a Catholic perspective on some of my questions. It's definitely been a learning experience for me :) I also appreciate how civil you always are, even when I come out a little too strongly (I recently had the experience of having a heated online discussion with an old Bible teacher of mine, and realized I probably say inflammatory things way more often than I mean too). I'm not sure what exactly will happen with this blog (it feels like it's coming to an end soon, one way or another), but your thoughts are always welcome!

“Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things–trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s small loss if the world’s as dull as place as you say.”